I totally agree. It needs a good IDE (a simple one that allows you to define
projects and step through the source code/compile it is sufficient) to find
more widespread use.
While everything can be done from the command line, it is an unneccessary
burden that slows down development time significantly.
-Andreas
"Jason Mills" <jmills@cs.mun.ca> wrote in message
news:d4nvni$vt4$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Matthew wrote:
>> I've read a couple of things recently that've indicated that D's not
>> taken seriously by the C++ world. I am wondering whether this is true,
>> since it's certainly not the impression that I've had from the people
>> I've spoken with about it, most of whom are not using it now, but are
>> definitely interested in doing so in the future; the D-curious, if you
>> like?
>>
>> I'm interested to hear from people what their friends/colleagues/etc.
>> think about D, especially in terms of whether they would be willing to
>> use it come 1.0.
>
> Most of my colleagues think D is great, but it cannot be used for serious
> development until more "professional" libraries and tools are available.
> Some also like to see commercially supported libraries and tools. A good
> GUI library is a must. Currently they are content using Microsoft
> supported products. It well be hard to make a change until D is seen as a
> professional programming language. What does this mean?
>
> - Good tools. Of course this means a good IDE that can compete with Visual
> Studio.
>
> - Large collection of standard libraries (e.g. Java, .NET), not some
> hodge-podge of loosely collected libraries, half supported and half not.
> This *must* include a sexy GUI toolkit.
>
> - Wider use and support by the industry. E.g., if Microsoft supported D,
> it would be used tomorrow.
>
> - All above should be professionally documented.
>
>
>> I'm also interested to hear of any specific must-haves that such people
>> have expressed.
>
> See points above.
>
>> Please, everyone, don't turn this thread into what _you_ think about D,
>> or what _you_ think should be in 1.0. We have a pretty good feel for what
>> D-philes think already.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Matthew
>>

Bad library, not even the basic collections you find everywhere. So D is
unusable in any kind of project.
A few C++ programmers see things like built in hash-tables and ask why the
languages is bloated with stuff like that, which could be done in the library
and then don't even give it a try.

"Matthew" <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message
news:d4mioc$2lgm$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I've read a couple of things recently that've indicated that D's not taken
> seriously by the C++ world. I am wondering whether this is true, since
> it's certainly not the impression that I've had from the people I've
> spoken with about it, most of whom are not using it now, but are
> definitely interested in doing so in the future; the D-curious, if you
> like?
>
> I'm interested to hear from people what their friends/colleagues/etc.
> think about D, especially in terms of whether they would be willing to use
> it come 1.0.
>
> I'm also interested to hear of any specific must-haves that such people
> have expressed.
>
> Please, everyone, don't turn this thread into what _you_ think about D, or
> what _you_ think should be in 1.0. We have a pretty good feel for what
> D-philes think already.
>
> Cheers
>
> Matthew
>
I haven't met anyone know knows anything about it. When I describe it they
don't seem particularly excited to give it a shot - I get the feeling people
don't want to invest in an unknown language without some obvious reason.
Then again most of the people I talked to either have a large investment in
C++ or Java and are comfortable as they are.
My own take is that people would be less hesitant to give it a shot if they
saw how easy it is to convert Java/C++ code to D and/or if it became
possible to mix D with projects that use C++ or Java. The ability to mix C++
with C was one reason why C++ became popular.

Matthew wrote:
> I'm interested to hear from people what their
> friends/colleagues/etc. think about D, especially in terms of
> whether they would be willing to use it come 1.0.
A friend of mine, who mostly codes C++, considers it too close to Java
(the casing does not help at all there ;). He would be missing all the
"powerful" C++ control that gets taken away from him - manual memory
management, class instances on the stack, multiple inheritance. He also
thinks it is inconsistent to have (object) reference types and value
types with no difference in syntax. I guess he does not like the shift
of paradigms - he is also very sceptical of Ruby, and has fun writing
things in pointer-mangling C.
Another friend of mine (yes, I really have more than one) thinks that D
is pointless because it does not solve any real problems. He considers
C++ the (currently, I think) best compromise between power and elegance.

Benjamin Herr wrote:
> He also thinks it is inconsistent to have (object)
> reference types and value types with no difference in syntax.
Hmm. This has stuck in my eye before.
Somehow, though, I haven't been able to formulate any specific complaint
about it. It's just a gut feeling: "this is not good".

"Georg Wrede" <georg.wrede@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:42702E24.90904@nospam.org...
> Benjamin Herr wrote:
>> He also thinks it is inconsistent to have (object)
>> reference types and value types with no difference in syntax.
>
> Hmm. This has stuck in my eye before.
>
> Somehow, though, I haven't been able to formulate any specific
> complaint about it. It's just a gut feeling: "this is not good".
I have much the same feeling. My gut's usually right - and I believe
it is in this case - but it can be somewhat ungenerous with its
explanations. ;)

"manual memory management, class instances on the stack, multiple
inheritance."
"manual memory management"... 'new' and 'delete' class methods are there.
"class instances on the stack"... this is about RAII I guess. 'auto' works
fine.
"multiple inheritance"... Last 10 years Java proves that single inheritance
plus
interfaces are working. In my opinion they are working better (more clean
and much more reliable) than multiple inheritance in C++.
Andrew.
"Benjamin Herr" <ben@0x539.de> wrote in message
news:d4oq91$1sek$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Matthew wrote:
>> I'm interested to hear from people what their
>> friends/colleagues/etc. think about D, especially in terms of
>> whether they would be willing to use it come 1.0.
>
> A friend of mine, who mostly codes C++, considers it too close to Java
> (the casing does not help at all there ;). He would be missing all the
> "powerful" C++ control that gets taken away from him - manual memory
> management, class instances on the stack, multiple inheritance. He also
> thinks it is inconsistent to have (object) reference types and value
> types with no difference in syntax. I guess he does not like the shift
> of paradigms - he is also very sceptical of Ruby, and has fun writing
> things in pointer-mangling C.
>
> Another friend of mine (yes, I really have more than one) thinks that D
> is pointless because it does not solve any real problems. He considers
> C++ the (currently, I think) best compromise between power and elegance.

In article <d4olba$1mav$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Ben Hinkle says...
<clip>
>
>My own take is that people would be less hesitant to give it a shot if they
>saw how easy it is to convert Java/C++ code to D and/or if it became
>possible to mix D with projects that use C++ or Java. The ability to mix C++
>with C was one reason why C++ became popular.
Yes, now that I think about it, he ability to call into C++ would be a huge
advantage. Not as a put-down, but think about a programmer who thinks C++ is no
better than C. What does D offer such a person?
Or consider a hypothetical programmer/project who is likely to switch from C to
D. If they are willing to switch from C to D, they will already have switched
from C to C++, right?
I understand why D can't call into C++ now (the many ABIs and manglings of C++),
but I think it is not unsurmountable. D adoption could be 20 times faster if I
could plug a C++ class into a D class.
What should be written (just brainstorming, here..) is a way to "tunnel" D
method calls into C++ method calls, possibly via generated C functions in the
short term, maybe more directly/transparently at some point in the future.
Kevin

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:26:18 +1000, Matthew wrote:
> I've read a couple of things recently that've indicated that D's not
> taken seriously by the C++ world.
I'm not in the C++ plus world, nor are my professional colleagues, but I'm
wondering if D's target audience is not the current C/C++/C#/Java crowd.
Instead, might it be found in the Perl, Python, Ruby, Euphoria, and
total-newbie groups that have not been exposed to the foibles of the 'C'
legacy, and are looking for speed, power, and simplicity?
Would attempting to "sell" to this set of people be a useful exercise?
--
Derek
Melbourne, Australia
28/04/2005 5:40:45 PM